All Comments (268)

Saying that "jesus" brought worldwar 2 and crusades, is nothing but foolish. Man Brought it upon themself's, Jesus had nothing to do with it. God gave man a free will, And man abuse that freedome now more than ever. Just couse something in the world is terrible terrible wrong, Dosent mean that God made it that way, Humans made it that way

Jesus is the Son of God, the Saviour of all humanity, and the only way to salvation, as decreed by the Father in Heaven.

There is only one way to obtain this confirmation and testimony, and Paul said it very clearly;

==1 Cor. 12: 3
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.==

It is only by the Holy Ghost, by the inspiration given by him, by personal revelation, can any person obtain a true testimony and witness that Jesus is the Lord. This is not done by belief, or by theleogy, or by study, or by any human mortal effort alone, but only by sincere prayer to the Father seeking this testimony of Jesus Christ.

A person can debate, argue, study, research all they want, for the rest of their life and will not find this straight forward, clear and concise confirmation that Jesus is the Lord, unless they bow to their knees in humble and sincere prayer asking the Father in heaven for that confirmation.

This is faith.

What has come to exist instead, is such a contradictory and hypocritical manner in many people is that on one hand they proclaim God is real and alive and answers prayers, but when it comes to asking that same God about Jesus Christ, they deny the very same beliefs about God and prayer.

Such confusion is not of God, neither taught of God, be it in the Old or New Testament, but taught by the devil himself, and such confused beliefs are a carry over of the great apostasy.

If a person is determined to believe that sincere and humble prayer will not avail anything, then they have nothing, because what I speak of is true Faith.

Disbelieve me?

I will say here that I have obtained that revelation by the Holy Ghost, giving to me that spiritual testimony, witness and confirmation from the Lord Jesus Christ himself, that he is the Saviour and only by and through him can we be saved.

Amen

Getting back to the topic:

Professor Crossan with great throughness examined all the existing scriptural writings from the first and second centuries AD/CE. If you do not have his 505 page book, The Historical Jesus, see http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf.

Using these documents plus the conclusions of the major NT exegetes in the past two hundred years, he compared Jesus' reported acts and sayings to when they were reported and how many reports were made. Those acts and sayings with single or later attestations along with the current biblical scholarship negativity, were judged not to be done or said by the historical Jesus. Approximately 67% of the NT was judged to be in that category, i.e. embellishments of the facts typically made to compete with the "Caesar", "Alexander" and Egyptian gods. See http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

Use this latter site to analyze your NT references for "Crossan" acceptance, e.g. Matt 1:23
26±. Jesus Virginally Conceived: (1) Gos. Heb. 1; (2) Matt 1:18-25; (3) Luke 1:26-38; (4a) Ign. Eph. 7:2; (4b) Ign. Eph. 18:2a; (4c) Ign. Eph. 19:1; (4d) Ign. Smyrn. 1:1b., was judged to be not from the historical Jesus but of theological importance.

These same passages also are in direct conflict with (!5a) John 6:42
(!5b) John 7:40-44
(!5c) John 8:39-41
(!5d) John 8:56-58
(!6) Luke 2:27,33,41,48

where Joseph is reported to be the father of Jesus.

"In Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography (2000), Bruce Chilton develops the idea of Jesus as a mamzer; someone whose irregular birth circumstances result in their exclusion from full participation in the life of the community. He argues for the natural paternity of Joseph and finds no need for a miraculous conception. In his subsequent reconstruction of Jesus' life, Chilton suggests that this sustained personal experience of exclusion played a major role in Jesus' self-identity, his concept of God and his spiritual quest."

"John P,Meier [Marginal Jew I,220-22] discusses the virginal conception as part of his larger chapter on Jesus' origins. He earlier notes that both infancy narratives "seem to be largely the product of Christian reflection on the salvific meaning of Jesus Christ in the light of OT prophecies (p. 213). At the end of his examination, Meier concludes:

The ends result of this survey must remain meager and disappointing to both defenders and opponents of the doctrine of the virginal conception. Taken by itself, historical-critical research simply does not have the sources and tools available to reach a final decision on the historicity of the virginal conception as narrated by Matthew and Luke. One's acceptance or rejection of the doctrine will be largely influenced by one's own philosophical and theological presuppositions, as well as the weight one gives to Church teaching."

Bramelton:

You state that "It's sad that Patrick devoted so much time to a post that is filled with absurdity. The idea that someone can't believe in something without seeing it proved out first is the most ridiculous comment I've read yet. I feel sorry for you and what you're missing.

Christ charges me to share the Gospel with you. Period. Whether or not you accept it is your choice. Truly a lost soul who can only see the obvious."

I think that most people can indeed believe in some things without having them proven before their very eyes. However, we generally have several requirements that must be met before we will accept something as true under those circumstances: For example, if someone else tells me that they saw a particular event happen, and I have substantial experience with that person and believe they are trustworthy, then I may believe them. This is what juries do when they convict someone of a crime based on the testimony of a witness - they have decided that the witness is trustworthy. Most people believe in atoms, although we cannot see them, because atomic theory gives predictions (about chemical reactions, etc.) that can be verified empirically. Children will also believe things about the world that their parents tell them are true. Children are probably biologically programmed to do this - they have no experience of the world and must rely on their parents while they are young. Many conservative religions (including conservative Christians) rely on this mechanism to inculcate beliefs in children that have little actual proof in the real world. The inculcation of some children in the Islamic world that they will get many virgins in Paradise if they blow themselves up is a good example of this. If children were exposed to all religions but not required to make up their minds about anything until they were adults, we would probably have many fewer conservative Christians and Muslims in the world.

The problem in believing the traditional Christian story (without seeing it oneself) is that a) there are many other religions that are just as old as Chistianity that give alternative views of the world; b) there is almost no external evidence (i.e., outside of the Bible) that the basic story of Jesus is true; c) we have plenty of experience with minor events in history getting changed to become major religious narratives - one only need look at the cargo cults in the South Pacific that developed after World War II. After seeing military planes that delivered cargo, some of the natives developed elaborate belief systems, which included beliefs that a (white) messiah from the United States would come someday to save them. Thus, I have little personal trust that the ancients who developed the stories that ultimately entered the Scriptural canon didn't change or alter real events to reflect their own beliefs and superstitions.

Frankly, to be FULLY convinced that the basic claims of conservative Christianity are completely true I would need one of the following: 1) A strong consensus among historians and archeologists that the core points of the Gospel are absolutely true. No such consensus currently exists. 2) I would need to personally experience some type of supernatural experience that told me that the Gospel is absolutely true (and you would need to convince me I wasn't having a psychotic delusion). 3) Someone I knew very, very well had such an experience. 4) Some sort of miraculous event showing that the Gospel was true occurred and was widely seen and very carefully documented. 5) The Bible made a very specific prediction (ie., X major event (too big to be made to happen by humans) is going to happen on January 1, 2009). If that event then did occur, that might be pretty convincing. However, I see no such predictions in the Bible.

Frankly, Bramelton, the reason you are a (conservative) Christian is probably because you were raised in it, and took in these beliefs as a child who was easily swayed. You stay in a strict conservative culture that does not allow you to question these beliefs or demand real evidence, so you keep these beliefs. Finally, you believe because you want to - you're afraid of going to Hell if you don't. Again, see my earlier comments on Pascal's Wager.

I should note that even in the traditional Christian story there were those who demanded evidence: Paul persecuted Christians until he experienced a direct miracle. One Apostle ("Doubting" Thomas) demanded evidence from the resurrected Jesus that he was the real thing. Jesus gave him the evidence.

I notice, Bramelton, that you seem to need to use emotionally loaded words ("sad", "absurd", "ridiculous") in place of logical arguments. My experience is that people who do this do it because they have no real logical argument to make. How about giving me a real logical argument instead of questioning my motivations or calling me names? It can be done, you know.

Martian,

You state:

"That is the nicest piece in the whole blog with regard to the main topic. But the material view is not that superficial any more, i.e. acquiring of wealth and power, etc. The geneticists are digging deep and one day soon they maybe able to replicate living things at will, body parts, plants, animals, humans... It would make the religious view, the sophisticated one, not the Bible says it that settles it for me view, much harder to defend."

Thanks for the compliment. Your idea that modern science is revealing a great deal about the world is undoubtedly correct. The Theory of Evolution posits that organisms that exist today have undergone a selective process through natural selection that makes them competitive in their current environment today. If they are not competitive in a given environment, they will not survive to pass on their genes to the next generation. Viewed in this way, a drive to acquire wealth and power makes total sense, because this wealth and power will help an individual who has it to reproduce more successfully (ever wonder why women tend to be attracted to powerful men?). This is why I have problems with Jesus's command to love your neighbor as yourself. I don't think that most humans are capable of that, and are not biologically programmed to do so. Instead, we are programmed to do what gets our genes into the next generation: Look for sex, care for our spouse (who may help us get our genes into the next generation), care for our children (who are the next generation). We also tend to care for close relatives because they carry some of our genes. We care for our general group (society) because it is in our interest to do so: our group can help us out when we are in need. However, we don't want to be cheated in our interactions with unrelated people - for anything we give, we want to get back something equivalent in return. This is, in fact, the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Seen from a biological perspective, conservative Christianity makes total sense - it gives its adherents a very strong sense of group, which can give them a big survival advantage (as long as one doesn't actually give all of one's possessions away to the poor, which a large majority of conservative Christians don't do). That doesn't mean that its doctrines are factually correct - they don't need to be to help their adherents survive. There are a number of reports now documenting that members of religious communities are healthier and live longer lives.

However, I must caution you somewhat about the potential limits of the scientific method. Even if modern science were able to clone humans or human body parts (actually, I think that we're almost there), I don't think that that will make Fundamentalism go away. Also, there may be questions that the scientific method will never be able to answer. Take the issue of consciousness, for example. We may or may not be able to figure out what that really is.

However, we have several world religions that have explored the nature of consciousness extensively: Buddhism and some forms of Hinduism, such as Advaita Vedanta. I find these religions to be quite appealing, for several reasons: First, they do not generally demand blind belief in religious propositions that have little external evidence to support them, as Christianity does. As religious communities, they may hold a general belief in things like reincarnation; however, you are not generally required to believe in these things to participate in the community. Instead, the emphasis is on practice (meditation, etc.). Using these practices, you can become more aware of how consciousness works. Second, these practices can have great benefit for your health. I recently attended an introductory class in Buddhist Vipassana meditation. As a part of the class, an M.D. psychiatrist presented studies showing that people who perform this type of meditation regularly lose considerably fewer brain cells as a consequence of aging. Some Zen practioners report feeling wonderful all the time once they have practiced a while. Sounds pretty good to me. Third, you can actually cultivate particular virtues, such as compassion. Jesus told us to turn the other cheek, but didn't really tell us how to do this. It can be very hard to do. If someone has deliberately hurt us, we generally want revenge. Look at conservative Christians on their support of the death penalty (in spite of Jesus's admonition to Peter to forgive your neighbor up to "seventy times seven times"). These people want revenge (and understandably so, from a human perspective). Imagine being able to, through meditation, cultivate a mental state in which you could truly forgive those who hurt you.

Fourth, Advaita Vedanta, at least, seems to hold that all religions are just different paths to the same goal. You may remain a Christian and practice Vedanta, using Christ as a figure in your meditation. You can also engage in some Buddhist meditation practices while remaining a Christian - some Buddhist leaders are quite OK with this.

Advaita Vedanta, to me, in fact, solves Pascal's Wager, at least to some extent: I am not being asked to commit to anything by blind belief. The spiritual practices give me health and stress reduction benefits (even if all of the religious beliefs are completely false). I can generate a sense of peacefulness that can help generate peacefulness in those around me, and is thus good for society. I can even continue in a basic committment to the Christian way, and thus keep my salvation if Christ really is the Savior.

Just some more musings.

To reiterate:

The problem is that we are told that Jesus was the Son of God by the human authors of Scripture but with proper human analyses the passages that indicate there is a link have been found to be embellishments. God being God does not need humans to communicate through. The fact that there are so many differences in NT scripture is enough to conclude that God is not involved in recording the events 2000 years ago.

For added thought, here is what JD Crossan has to say about atonement theology: (from his book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts)

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

It's sad that Patrick devoted so much time to a post that is filled with absurdity. The idea that someone can't believe in something without seeing it proved out first is the most ridiculous comment I've read yet. I feel sorry for you and what you're missing.

Christ charges me to share the Gospel with you. Period. Whether or not you accept it is your choice. Truly a lost soul who can only see the obvious.

Old Jew,

As a martian, hence a goyim, I have always wondered about the Jewish mind, about its brilliance, its cleverness, its cunning. About its use of symmetry on such a grand historical scale such as God's sacrifice of his Son to balance, no to one up, Abraham's readiness to sacrifice his. About Jesus fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah after a thousand years. About whether it is a blessing or a curse to the human race.

Now I know it's a joke, in the best tradition ala Seinfeld. Testament comes from holding on to your testes when you testify? Brilliant! The Greek gods swear their oath by water, hence the Christian baptism. But holding on to your balls? That makes absolute sense! What is more dear to the human species, the male side anyway?

The joke is on the goyims eh? Two billion of them! Almost four if you count the Muslims.

Patrick,

That is the nicest piece in the whole blog with regard to the main topic. But the material view is not that superficial any more, i.e. acquiring of wealth and power, etc. The geneticists are digging deep and one day soon they maybe able to replicate living things at will, body parts, plants, animals, humans... It would make the religious view, the sophisticated one, not the Bible says it that settles it for me view, much harder to defend.

As for Pascal's wager, as a hedge it's almost a cheat. That would get you through the Pope or even Peter. The real Jesus would spot that one from a mile away.

Historical Jesus studies have been afoot for only about 200 years. Before that the lack of education and communication in the global world prevented a thorough review of this fellow Jesus so called son of God.

Blind faith based on the musings of a few elderly gentlemen of the first and second century CE, and promulgated by a few "elite", white male Europeans is no longer acceptable. Please review the following before making any more judgments.

1. Historical Jesus Theories, (from Google) -- the names of most of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the titles of their over 100 books on the subject.

2. Early Christian Writings, (from Google)
-- a list of early Christian documents to include the year of publication

3. Historical Jesus Studies, (from Google)-- "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"

4. Jesus Database, (from Google)--"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."

5. Josephus on Jesus (from Google)

6. The Jesus Seminar, (from Google)

7. Writing the New Testament- (from Google)

Well, in Acts 2:22 Peter was supposed to have said: you that are Israelites, listen to what I have to say: Jesus the Nazorene, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as yourselves know-"
Here it is implied that Jesus did not do it but God almighty did the miracles through him. Again in John 5:30 we read:"I can do nohing on my own. As I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek to do not my own will but the will of him who sent me. 31" if I testify about myself, my testimony is not true." Just listen to what he had to say not some other preacher. Also, in John 5:44 we read: "How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one WHO ALONE IS GOD?"
Actually when we examine his words we see Jesus is trying to redirect all our attetion and worship towards the one who sent him. I think it is idolatrous to pray to Jesus and worship him when in actuality Jesus himself prayed to God as it is written in the synoptic gospels...

As far as the title son of God is concerned, we have to be careful. We have to read in the context of his jewish milieu. Isreal is called the son of God along with David and a lot of other people. Just read the OT.
In John 10:31 we read : The Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus replied, "I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?" 33 The Jews answered, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God." 34 Jesus answered, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods'? 35 If those to whom the word of God came were called 'gods' — and the scripture cannot be annulled — 36 can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, 'I am God's Son'? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." 39 Then they tried to arrest him again, but he escaped from their hands." So the jews accused him of blasphemy calling himself the son of God, but Jesus sidestepped their allegations and explained to them that other people were called gods in their scriptures and that they should not object to him calling himself the son of God. It's a spiritual title nothing more.

Julia's description of Jesus is not inconsistent with what Jesus probably said about himself. I distinguish the message of Jesus (in history, such as we have it) from the words that were placed in his mouth, for example by the writer of the Gospel of John. These came considerably later and were, as I take them, "parables about Jesus" - as Dom Crossan explains elsewhere.

In the same spirit, I think you can understand "divinity" as a special status that we give to transcendant personalities. (This was how the Roman emperors seemed to get themselves deified.) Jesus was Jesus. It has been his followers, down to the present day, who give him divine status. In this way, it is perfectly possible to declare with Paul that "Jesus is Lord."

The essence of the Christian story is the crucifixion and resurrection, along with Jesus' teachings. The resurrection of Jesus can be understood as the first step towards the general resurrection and establishment of the Kingdom. The historical details of this story are unknowable. Much of it also may be parable about Jesus, but clearly it was the "good news" of the earliest Christians.

These (admittedly unorthodox) views may make for better dialog with Jews and Muslims. We do not have to debate historically who Jesus was or how many supernatural events happened. Christianity is the profound theological interpretation that has been given to Jesus' life and work. Jews and Muslims have other interpretations.

When Jesus lived on earth He used divine power to performed miracles intended to prove He was the son of God.

Every day when I look in the mirror and see the changes in me and my life since, I surrendered it to Jesus Christ, I see another of His miracles.

Jesus still performs miracles today and that is proof enough for me.

All I can say about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection is to read what he said before Pilot. He supposed to have said: "My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be FIGHTING to keep me from being handed over to the jews." John 18:36.
Now, why would Jesus say that if he knew he had to die for the sins of man like a lot of people woud like to have us believe?

As I’ve been reading the thread I have a few thoughts and questions.
“Jesus wasn't supposed to defend himself from being crucified. If Jesus didn't get crucified, then he would not have been resurrected. The Resurrection is one of the critical foundations of the Christian faith. ”

So any other form of death would not allow for a resurrection He had to be crucified? He couldn't have drunk hemlock or taken and even greater hand in his own death or its time and method? Is there a prophesy about crucifixion? If not wouldn’t the Christian religion created it’s foundation on some other aspect of Christ’s love?

“a Jew who was critical of the orthodoxy of his day......So all the critics of that era had 12 Apostles??”

I don't remember any prophesy about 12 apostles can someone help me with why this is important?

“In regards to Ms. Neuberger's comments, I think C.S. Lewis said it best: "Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about him being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

Quite honestly think the only person he hasn’t left the option of viewing Jesus as a great human teacher open to is CS Lewis. Nothing in Lewis’s statement precludes one from thinking of Jesus as a great teacher any more than it would actually engage me to believe that there is only room for a man to be be a lord and God, or a demon to be spit upon. There’s a bit of faulty logic at work here. The world isn’t black and white like his view is even if Jesus fails to be the son of god that doesn’t automatically cast him as a demon.

“Jesus was(probably) a Middle eastern man who (probably) lived some 20 centuries ago and developed a following in his time. Since then his followers have had unending disagreements about what he really said, what he really meant by what he said, and whether he really was resurrected and was the son of God. Anybody who wasn't there doesn't really know any of these things, and all of you believe what you want. Don't see how any meaningful discourse can occur here, and I've been looking for some since the feature started.”

I do have to agree with this statement at least to the point that we don’t know what was really said including if Jesus ever claimed to be the messiah or if that was added later. Too that end I don’t know how we can argue about who said what without going to source outside the bible and seeing if the phrases appear repeatedly and trying to create a set of sayings

Funny, but I don't feel evicerated.

First off, I think you've got access to Rules About Doll Houses that isn't widely published.

Who said that they can't have working plumbing? And who said they had to have hinges? (That's your choice). A perfectly good doll house could be created that replicates a normally-sized house in every respect (including WiFi). Doesn't have to be too small. If it were 99 percent the size of a real house, wouldn't it be a "model?" Could not a full-scale house be built with hinges?
You're talking about red-herrings, not models.
The only difference between our doll house and your house is scale.

I don't think you've every seen a model airplane. They have engines, which use fuel and fly very nicely. When the military or industry use them, they are called drones.

I didn't know that terrorist-utility was a requirement of airplane design.

You clearly and deliberately misstated my idea. I did not say that models "need not" be as complex. I said that models could and were as complex, but built on a different scale.

The word "scale" doesn't appear in your eviceration at all. You've wondered off point.

Atom models are more problematical. But they're working on them in the lab. Or, given from what you've written, I suppose we ought to reconsider why we're doing subatomic research.

I get all the jazz from Bertrand Russell, but you're talking about something else all together.

Yes, it impossible to perfectly model the thing. The original post basically said that because that is true we shouldn't try at all.

That isn't what Russell said at all. He said go ahead, try to model, learn what you can. You can model something with accuracy approaching replication but not fully achieve it. There are pardoxes and limits you should be aware of, he said.

He didn't say don't try at all.

Bob,

You state: "What if Jesus is real? Note the present tense.
If he is not real then the christians are no worse off than anyone else. They die the end.
Once again, what if that is not the end of the story?"

As someone else in this Forum noted, this is Pascal's Wager. The idea is that I should believe in Christ because I have nothing to lose if he is not real, and everything to lose if he is. There are several problems with Pascal's Wager:

1) What does it mean to believe? Frankly, one believes something is true based on evidence. If you tell me I must believe something or I am going to Hell forever, and yet you present no convincing evidence for the actual truth of what you want me to believe, how can I possibly believe? I can SAY I believe, but do I believe? I can go to church and say the creeds, but without convincing evidence that they are true, do I really believe? Do you think an omniscient God would not know what I really believe? Of course, I could COMMIT to the Christian way, and agree to live as Christ preached, even without any evidence, but does this make me a believer? Many conservative Christians would say no.

2) There are competing religions that also say that I must believe THEIR way or I am going to Hell. However, their way may be incompatible with the Christian way. For example, Islam believes that Christ was only a prophet, but not the Son of God. Many Muslims thus believe that Christianity contains a heresy, and, at least some believe that Christians will go to Hell when they die because of this heresy. Thus, if my goal in choosing a faith is only based on avoiding Hell, which religion should I choose?

Many conservative Christians who use Pascal's Wager to try to scare people into accepting Jesus are in fact Protestant Evangelicals or Fundamentalists. They should consider how Pascal's Wager applies to them: The Roman Catholic Church claims that masturbation and artificial birth control are intrinsically evil. Evangelical Protestants generally do not agree, and most practice artificial birth control. If I understand Roman Catholic teaching correctly (please correct me if I do not), repeatedly and unrepentantly engaging in something that intrinsically evil is a serious sin, and will result, if unconfessed, in a person's going to Hell. Thus, using the logic of Pascal's Wager, to avoid the possibility of being wrong and going to Hell,
Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants should avoid masturbation and artificial birth control, just to hedge their bets that the Roman Catholic Church might be right on this.

3) I personally have problems believing that a (Christian) God would sentence an individual to Hell forever for essentially making an honest mistake, and a mistake that would be easy to make, too, given the competing religions that are out there, and the absence of compelling EXTERNAL evidence (OUTSIDE of the Christian Bible itself) that the traditional Christian message is factually true. If there is a God, I suspect that, though he might well punish people for their sins, that punishment would not last indefinitely, and that there is some mechanism by which people can leave Hell. Hinduism provides this with its doctrine of reincarnation. Zoastrianism, one of the world's oldest religions, also holds that people will eventually be released from Hell.

4) Personally, I don't want to come to God because of fear; I would rather come to God because of love.

Here is what I think what most people in the world do: We appear to be faced with two obvious view of the world. The first view is the material one. This view is the one that is most obviously true to our senses. According to this, the world we see is the only one that is real. When we die, we are dead. Therefore, we should behave in a material way to protect ourselves while we are alive. We should attempt to acquire wealth and power, since these will protect us and also allow us to enjoy life more fully. Sex is one of life's great pleasures and so we engage in it a lot, sometimes licitly, sometimes illicitly.

The second world view is the spiritual one - the idea that there is more to life than the material world, and that we might survive our own deaths. We hope for this, and we also fear this (ending up in Hell, etc.). This view also gives us comfort in our current material life if things aren't going too well, and helps relieve our anxiety about the future.

My opinion is that, in truth, most people, consciously or not, hedge their bets. They try to obtain power, wealth, etc., while also professing a belief in God (and, indeed, genuinely believing in God to some extent). Because they do believe in God a bit, they try to do some charitable works. However, most will never live up to the strict core beliefs of their religion, because they don't have enough evidence that the religious view is actually true, and there are potential negative consequences for them in the material world if they live up to the core beliefs of their religion too strictly. Looking at the Christian Gospels, it seems to obvious to me that if one were truly and completely convinced that the message of Jesus were true, one would sell all of one's possessions and become an itinerant beggar, preaching the Gospel, and helping the poor. However, for many of us, the material view of the world remains very strong, and we have, in the back of our heads, at least, the idea that if we gave away all of our possessions we would be poor. It's not very nice to be poor in our society; people don't treat you very well. It would be much more enjoyable to have material wealth.

My sense is that religious liberals and liberal Christians are much more honest with themselves about what is really motivating them than the conservatives are. Liberals will much more readily admit that they are torn between the two world views. Conservatives, on the other hand, remain in denial, preaching a strict Gospel of personal conversion, and saying they really mean it. However, I think that deep down many of them have the same doubts that the liberals have, but that they just can't admit it (certainly not openly, because their church might then kick them out). Look at how so many (although not all) American Evangelicals actually behave: They acquire riches, power, and material goods. They are extremely patriotic, and, many essentially claim that the United States is God's gift to the world. Frankly, the United States is a powerful nation, with all of the material benefits that that entails. Many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are as tempted by the material view of the world as anybody else, and so try to justify keeping all that power. I wish that they would just be more honest: they're not entirely sure that the spiritual view of the world is entirely true, so they hedge their bets like anyone else. It's easy enough to go about PREACHING the Gospel; that doesn't necessarily cost you that much money. It's much harder to give all you have to the poor, because you would then be poor, and maybe not treated that well.

Just my musings on how things really are.

I think it would be appropriate now to paraphrase that cook in an early 3 Stooges flick where the water is coming out of the stove; "Dis place sho gone crazy!"

IT'S THE CONSCIOUSNESS, NOT THE MAN. It matters not whether a person accepts the man, Jesus. It matters not whether a person accepts the man, Mohammed. Neither does it matter whether a person accepts the Buddha or Gandhi. What matters of utmost importance is CONSCIOUSNESS. Jesus stated he was ONE WITH GOD because he had the CONSCIOUSNESS OF GOD---LOVE TOWARD THE ALL. This consciousness was ONE WITH GOD because it was the CONSCIOUSNESS WHICH LOVES THE ALL. Jews and Christians have, for centuries, had the erroneous belief in the superiority of their "faith". THIS IS NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER, NOT GOD CONSCIOUSNESS. THE MESSIAH IS NOT A MAN---IT IS A CONSCIOUSNESS. IT IS THE CONSCIOUSNESS THAT LOVES THE ALL. The ego consciousness excludes, separates, divides and considers itself superior. This is what is wrong with formal religion. It excludes, divides, separates and distinguishes by positioning its superiority over "other". Judaism had this elitist and exclusive consciousness and Christianity absorbed that into its formal religion. Islam has also done the same. This consciousness is not the consciousness of God. It is the consciousness of the EGO. Every religion is merely one path to the same ultimate, ineffable goal and each religion has different rituals to express their understanding of what is ultimately ineffable and unutterable. The primary problem with the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths is that certain populations within these religions don't get it---THE MESSIAH IS A CONSCIOUSNESS, NOT A MAN. So Rabbi Neuberger need not accept Jesus, the man, but God help her if she doesn't understand that THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF JESUS is the CONSCIOUSNESS OF GOD---LOVE FOR ALL. It is the same consciousness of Hillel, of Gandhi, of Buddha, of Mohammed. AND IT IS A DIVINE CONSCIOUSNESS BECAUSE IT IS THE CONSCIOUSNESS THAT LOVES THE ALL. All the rituals and 'laws' don't amount to a hill of beans if a person cannot fathom and comprehend this essential truth. If people in all formal religions are unable to IMBUE THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF LOVE TOWARD ALL, then we are all doomed on this planet and the ego consciousness of those people within the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths who want to argue, bicker, debate, disagree, fight and kill "the other" in order to make the point that they are the 'SUPERIOR' religion, will be the death of us all.

I can't decide which is worse:

1)Rabbi Neuberger's choice of a topic (Rabbi, how about something relevant to living one's life as a decent human-being rather than starting a debate over Jesus' divinity)

or

2)The robotic ramblings of immature Christians who have a world view and a concept of god at the level of a 3 year old.

David

As a Muslim I revere Jesus as one of our prophets. As a matter of fact Mohammad (pbuh) came to conclude the monoethism chain of faiths of Judaism and Christianity. We only do not accept Judaism's 'chosen people' version and Christianity's 'god's son' version. We believe all people are born equal and we also believe God or Allah does not need a son. At 70, when I look back I find Islam propagating oneness of God from beginning to the end

1) If it was God's plan that Jesus die to redeem the sins of mankind,
why did God then instigate the elimination of the Jewish Christ-killers but not the Roman Christ-killers, both of whom were part of the plan (since God plans everything)?

2) History shows that when Christians talk about loving their fellow man, they generally mean fellow Christians. Except for those interruptions when Catholics and Protestants are killing each other.
Or for those times when God is angry with heretics, Catholics are killing other Catholics, or Protestants are killing other Protestants.

The best source we have to learn about the significance and nature of Jesus Christ is the Bible.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." - 2 Timothy 3:16-17

After seeking all over, over many years (15 to be more precise) I was glad to accept the truth of the salvation offered by Christ through His gospel. I have truly been blessed and can testify to the fulfillment of Christ's promise:

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." - Matthew 11:28-30

I only hope that I can, through my actions and life, along with my words, be worthy of what is asked of me :

"Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship." - Romans 12:1

Peace and love to all you seekers of truth.

Mario:

so you've never heard of missionaries? And why is it only Christians that should help others? Athiests and Agnostics are excused from this?

Dear Ms. Stein,

Thank you for your post. In reference to
WWJD?

He probably would have made whatever he needed from kitchen tap water. :)

I think that you acted in a very Christian manner. You could have rightfully escalated the matter and involved store management. Was there even a human cashier, or was check out completely automated? Personally, I believe that the Golden Rule applies to others, and I take it as fact that they are acting in accordance to it. That does not always work well, and the anger is not reduced in any event. May God Bless you as you go in Peace and Understanding. Regards

Old Jew:

New testament - tall tale? Lets think this through. Jewish men (who prayed they weren't born women) telling tales about a man who was resurrected and found by a woman. Yeah, that is a tall one. What else - oh yeah, he came to just save our souls, not to save the Jews from the Romans. Another really tall one. Oh, and one other - he died for everyone's sin. Somehow that is the most unbelieveable from jewish standpoint.

DNA, proteins, cells, organisms, the eco system, solar energy

Hmm, all created by mere chance, or by God.
Jesus just happened to have a better idea of what mankind could be, or just maybe, He was who he said he was.

I did not know that Dick Cheney was abused by Jesus as a youngster.

As an old jewish man I know how my friends and I like to tell stories, some of which are exaggerated or outright made-up-tales.(Zadie micers). The bible had to have been written by old Jewish men. Even the so-called New Testament. Even the name testament is a joke because before swearing on the bible was invented as a way to give an oath of truth, men used to hold their testes to show that they were telling the truth.Anyhow, only those who think tales told by old Jewish men are all true can truly say they believe the stories in the bible. Paul, an old Jewish man(Sollie from Tarsus) got the Goyim to join the sect by not making them get circumcized and letting them keep eating pig. His goal was to undermine the Roman Empire. It worked.Unfortunately many of the Roman's sucessors continued the Roman hatred of the Jews. So all Paul's planning went for naught.

Well, lets put this to the test. We are told in the New Testament that whatever we ask of God the Father in the Name of Jesus will be given us. Simple enough. Try it.

If you pray to God in the morning and ask for something in the Name of Jesus, then you will recieve it or you will not.

If you recieve it, you are now a de facto believer. If you do not recieve it, you do not have to be. Fair enough?

Nobody knows. Faith means you pick a path in the darkness. Belief means you reject all paths other than the one chosen. Let us not separate ourselves from one another by our beliefs. That would be breaking faith with one another. That would leave us not only in the dark, but alone.

JESUS WAS GOD!!

God is a metaphor?

Merry Christmas to the Christ deniers.

Martian, Neoplatonist Dave, Mario, Bob, Non-Darwin

It has been a pleasure, but a lady (even a mathematician) needs her rest. Good night, ye merry gentlemen.

lady.mathematician@gmail.com

Martian, Mathematician.. you've made my brain hurt and I love you for it! :) Thanks!

Lekha,
The last thing I read on this was the last sentence you typed, what stood out the most is: "...among all the churches in his (Christ's) name, not even one of them even remotely comes close to the essence of Jesus Christ."

Thank you.

I wish more so-called "Christians" would really learn his teachings and go out into the world and use their influence to make this a better world for EVERYONE not just those that agree with their warped view of what it means to be faithful or even "Christian".

Good night everyone and Happy Holidays.

why are the nonbelievers angry? maybe it's not personal problems, as some smug poster said, but because they see billions of people believing in fairytales ...running their lives, and going to war for a lot of lies that are no more real than the pagan gods... and our hard-earned tax money going to support 'faith-based initiatives' in violation of the law... and a single cell held to be more important than research to save lives... and on and on.

while i'm at it, you christians should realize you're not in jesus' church, but paul's. without paul and his opening the thing up to non-jews, it would have died a quick death as a minor jewish sect. along with paul's gift you get his personal problems: misogamy, homophobia, wide-ranging guilt, disgust with sex. And you're welcome to it all. enjoy.

The available documents would suggest that Jesus did see himself as something special, and that Jesus did see himself as a messianic figure. His close followers had an almost fanatical loyalty to him, and clearly, Jesus was seen as a threat to the local powers of the day, the Jewish elders who ran the local area with tepid support from the Roman overlords.

I am suspicious that Jesus was a "teacher of Judaism", as Ms. Neuberger calls him, as Jesus seemed to have his own direction concerning religious practices and conversion to acceptance which was not in line with Judaic customs. If you believe in the overall authenticity of the Gospels of Judas, Jesus seemed to have high aspirations as to his future in the after life, and actually commanded Judas to turn Jesus in, so that Jesus could ascend to the next level, so to speak.

One of the reasons that Christianity took off fairly quickly, over time, was that it was very popular with the extremely poor (most people) and did not have onerous requirements to be accepted into the fold, whereas Judaism was heavily into bloodlines and custom. Eventually the Romans co-opted the movement as their own, and the movement took off in a big way.

Jesus is Jesus and God is God,It seems many people believe they are the same and pray to Jesus but Jesus himself said people should only pray to God.

Now we are getting there. DNA, proteins, cells, organisms, the eco system, solar energy, ... i.e. the whole, System Science, Systemics. Union is not enough of a concept. The whole is much more than the sum of the parts.

You won't find a better discussion on the subject than Aristotle's Metaphysics, he called it First Philosophy actually. And the man wrote it 24 centuries ago! Russel does not hold a candle to the man. None of the modern logicians do.

Only in today's environment can a post about Jesus & Judaism turn into opportunities for folks to display their Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Merry Christmas to everyone.

Thank you, Martian

DNA is absolutely not a 1-1 mapping. That's why it is DNA, and not another organism. DNA is not the organism, it is the code. The organism is the union of the proteins encoded by the DNA, and the environment upon which these proteins are expressed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I saw you quoting Darwin before. DNA is just nature... there's also nurture.

Ah but the DNA molecules help replicate life everywhere. It sure as heck is not a 1 to 1 mapping to the organism. So where did the rest of the organism come from?

i completely agree with your view.

i was born and raised a catholic in india and i was extremely religious and a very devout catholic until i was teenager. then i started questioning a lot of things including virgin mary and resurrection to the chagrin of my extremely religious-everyday-rosary-reciting parents.

i have an uncle and a few cousins who talked to me about the 'Last tempation of christ' among other things.

but everything came into sharp focus when i read 'Benhur' when i was in college. to me it looked like a highly controversial book and put everything into perspective. jesus christ dared to go against the system and the politicians created an atmosphere to persecute him and ironically the romans who persecuted him later became the bearers of his torch so to speak.

there was a time when i read the bible not to memorise it, but to understand it. i am not religious anymore, but Jesus christ would always be an influential role-model in my life. the reality that he was human only increased my admiration for this powerful historical figure.

to me jesus christ was way ahead of his times and a visionary, albeit misguided probably, because to an enslaved isralies liberation from the Romans was a bigger priority than the 'kingdom of god.'

he was a political victim like anyone else during any other period and he was so far left that he makes today's liberals looks like neo-cons.

the only thing that makes me sad is that among all the churches in his name not even one of them even remotely comes close to essence of jesus christ.

lekha

In love how positive everyone is that they know the abslolute truth. The fact of the matter is noone really knows the truth. They only have ideas and beliefs. A wise person knows that he doesn't know anything and takes even his beliefs with a grain of salt. The world would be a much better place if more people were like that.

Martian,
in response to your first question: I use a mac.
But watch me employ your friend's, Aristotle's, teacher to help me...

Dear Doll house boy, Estes, I have a simple multi-part answer to your model question. First, stay with me while I eviscerate your argument.
Your hypothesis seems to be that models need not be as complex as the subject they model in order to be comprehensively valid and accurate.
By the Socratic method, we shall test that hypothesis in order to prove it or disprove it.

1) Doll houses
While doll houses may accurately represent the basic structure of actual houses, they do not have internal plumbing connected to a city-wide network, electricity, wi-fi capabilities or actual living inhabitants. Thus, these houses are not made to withstand daily internal use. Not to mention having hinges that open them for children to play, which, if I'm not mistaken, are lacking in actual houses. By contradiction, your first piece of supporting evidence disproves your theory.

2) Atom
Structural representations of atoms may give structural insight into atomic and molecular structures. However, atom "models" do not give an accurate representation of electric and magnetic properties, or any insight into nuclear interactions of neutrons and protons. In addition, atom models do not display the existence of quarks. By contradiction, your second piece of supporting evidence disproves your theory.

3) Airplanes
"Model" airplanes cannot actually carry human beings from one place to another. They do not require fuel, and cannot be used as terrorist weapons. By contradiction, your third piece of supporting evidence disproves your theory.

QED^3

These examples may be compartmentaly accurate, but in order to be globally comprehensive of the behavior you are trying to model, you would need a model of the complexity, or "order" you are trying to model.

Still with me?
Models, as described in the Principia Mathematica, by Russell, are 1 to 1 mappings. In order to accurately represent, with predictive accuracy, all aspects of the subject being modeled, this process must be bijective, and not injective. Therefore, if any information is compromised in the mapping, the model is inherently flawed, and therefore no longer accurately predicts any and all possible outcomes. If there is a true 1 to 1 mapping, then you have the subject itself, and the model is irrelevant and dispensable.

In short, you cannot "winzip" things into models.

Martian,
anything to add?

Dave,
I gave you more than an hour to respond. Martian is on a VERY different time-zone, and he's (do Martians have gender, or have you evolved from that?) on the ball... Very disapointing.

Genio... So now you can look into the hearts of others and know what is there? Isn't that reserved for God? You sound young so you will no doubt outgrow this tendency. As far as everyone here, as well as you dear Genio, we are all limited beings. But we all try. I think the secret is realizing that none of us really know anything.

Anyone who uses their intellect to ponder the world or their faith to guide their steps through it are worthy of respect. We falter only when we come to regard our incomplete knowledge as THE TRUTH and thus use it as a weapon against others.